In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

Susan Rice is being tapped as Obama’s new National Security Adviser to replace Tom Donilon. Undoubtedly, there will be uproar from Republicans at this after the much hyped-up (much ado about nothing) Secretary of State debacle of a few months ago. In case you forgot, many Republicans (both senators and media) personalities waged an all-out war against Susan Rice, the then-likely next Secretary of State, tarnishing her name after, as then US Ambassador to the UN, she reported what was later found out to be false information on the September 11, 2012 US embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans vowed not to vote for her, bullying her into stepping out of the running. Voila! Now we have Secrekerry aka Secretary of State John Kerry, a person senators such as John McCain respect and feel comfortable with in the position–despite Kerry being a Democrat. The Susan Rice witch hunt can be viewed as a prelude to the Chuck Hagel–a person John McCain did not much respect or feel comfortable with in the position despite his being a Republican and co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential campaign–witch hunt. (Crazy Republicans, tricks are for kids!) Somehow, miraculously, Chuck Hagel passed grueling confirmation hearings to become the current Secretary of Defense.

Anyway, getting back to the original story: the prospect of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser is bound to cause strife after the Susan-Rice-as-Secretary-of-State-debacle. I think this strategy to make her National Security Adviser is brilliant, however, from a political standpoint. If Republicans decide to wage unreasonable opposition yet again, Democrats–and the White House–can remind them of another Rice in the position of National Security Adviser. That Rice, Condoleezza, propagated tons of false and skewed intelligence information that led the United States into an almost 9 year war with Iraq. Oops. Thousands of US lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, you say! What about the 13 embassy bombings under Bush’s watch? What about all the innocent people who died due to a drawn out war that we KNOW was a mistake? We’re not supposed to talk about that.

Anyway, the post of National Security Adviser does not require Senate Confirmation. There may be a lot of bellyaching from Republicans, but they’ll have to suck it up. I take issue with Susan Rice for other reasons, but the way Republicans used her for target practice in their crazed spree/politicization of the Benghazi terror attack is more than unbecoming. It is shameful. Good for Obama. Good for Rice. Perhaps bad for the country in the short term as the media whips a non-story into the next (non) controversy with wall-to-wall coverage. It will be fun to see Fox News in a tizzy, though. You almost can’t blame many of these politicians and their talking heads–when your “policy” initiatives in the Congress include such recent actions as voting to repeal “Obamacare” for the 37th time and defunding the now 3 years-defunct ACORN, using taxpayer money to do so–you need flashy distractions. Without the illusion of the Great Oz, all you have is a scared, deceptive man behind a curtain.

Susan Rice will be the next National Security Adviser. The Republicans will whine and stamp their feet. They’d do better to focus on actual policy. Didn’t they learn the lesson of 2012? Had enough Americans responded to their childish tactics, and voted for Mitt Romney as president, they wouldn’t be in this position today.

Yesterday, the best hope for any real progress in protecting Americans from gun violence was shot down.

The Senate voted on an expansion of the background check system for those seeking to buy guns. It’s important to note that this bill was a watered-down version of previously proposed bills on the expansion of background checks. The bill called for background checks to be performed at gun shows and prior to Internet sales. Because the bill expressly exempted background checks from being required for sales from gun owners to relatives and friends, it fell far short of the “universal background check” threshold. The bill was expressly written in such a way both to alleviate fears of too much government incursion in private sales, and as an attempt to make it more palatable to senators who fear the lobbying and economic power of the NRA. It’s also important to note that the bill contained a very specific provision AGAINST the creation of a national gun registry. Because some paranoid people think that the US government actually wants to keep lists of these people in an effort to confiscate their guns, efforts were made to assuage even those most ardent opposers. To think the government a. has their shit together enough to accomplish such a mass undertaking, and b. has the time and money to do so, reveals a tremendous faith in our system. (These are some of the same people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Which is it: powerful, Orwellian overreach, or staggering ineptitude? Make up your mind.)

I get it, though. There’s a fear that the government lies. Well, the NRA has demonstrably lied on a huge scale in order to push its pro-guns for everyone, everywhere agenda. The NRA is financed by gun manufacturers. Therefore, the NRA does the bidding of the gun manufacturers and represents their desires above those of actual NRA members. Of course gun manufacturers want as few restrictions as possible on gun sales. Gun sales are how they make their money. It’s not difficult to connect the dots. In fact, it’s a much easier connection than those reached by conspiracy theorists. Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ginning up fear among the populace by distorting the facts, and telling people that “the government is going to take your guns away”, which translates into “Better get them while their hot–you never know when they’ll be gone for good!” This also leads to the idea that people need as much protection as possible against a “tyrannical” government comprised of SWAT teams and Special Forces soldiers who will kick down their doors in an effort to forcefully, physically “steal” their Cobstitutionally-protected firearms. Scary image, right? That’s why fear mongering is effective. And, in this case, it’s particularly potent because it preys on people who are already especially vulnerable to this type of delusional mindset. Never mind the fact that several Supreme Court cases as well as the Constitution itself is on the side of gun owners. These people who possess deadly weapons are defenseless against the Leviathan, didn’t you know? In their minds, their guns are the only things standing between them and such ridiculous and dangerous notions as state-run concentration camp style FEMA camps used to imprison citizens. What do you bet these people don’t even know that there are countries like Russia and North Korea who, right now, send political prisoners to ACTUAL work/slave camps?

Anyway, efforts were made to try to convince these people that their worst fears would never be realized. The government actually catered to THEM.

While the compromise bill was not as far-reaching as many would have liked, it was hailed as a historic and positive step. Its bipartisan nature was touted. It was drafted by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two conservative senators who represent areas densely populated by gun owners. It was often mentioned how credibility was gained by the fact that both senators had “A” ratings from the NRA.

In a myriad of polls, at least 90% of the American people supported expanded background checks. Some polls said 91%. More than 80% of Americans supported universal background checks.

Even NRA head and soulless shell of a person Wayne LaPierre called for universal background checks in a widely-circulated video showing him testifying before Congress in 1999 on behalf of the NRA and its powerful lobbyists.

It was thought that in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre and the accumulated horror of all the mass shootings and smaller scale, but ubiquitous, gun violence, that it was finally possible to attempt to make the country just a little safer. As both Biden and Obama have said, if the life of one child, one person, or a hundred, or a thousand, is saved by keeping guns out of the hands of more convicted felons, domestic abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses, don’t we have an obligation to try?

As the families and friends of those who died and suffered grievous injuries in shootings looked on from the Senate gallery (at the very senators they had summoned the strength to share their stories with in an effort to prevent others from going through the same unimaginable pain in the future), the Senate killed the bill. The vote was 54-46, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the 46 and voting no once it became clear the bill wouldn’t pass in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future. Two of the women directly affected by gun violence shouted “shame on you” to those senators who voted no, from the Senate gallery. Former Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a famous example of gun violence, echoed this statement in an op-ed for “The New York Times” published today. As she explained how she has been robbed of the ability to speak easily since being shot in the head in Tucson in January 2011, she expressed being “furious” at the outcome of the vote. She is not only a former Congresswoman, a very visible victim of gun violence, and still, a gun owner, but she also co-founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC that aims to counter the incredible lobbying power of the NRA, with her former astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.

President Obama was very angry at a press conference he gave less than an hour after the Senate vote. He said that while “90 percent of Democrats voted for the bill, 90 percent of Republicans voted against it”. Obama explicitly called the NRA out on its lies to people.

The NRA erroneously claimed that a universal gun registry was to be created, and that it would be used to punish lawful gun owners. The NRA LIED ON PURPOSE–and, as Obama said, it worked. Unfortunately, enough of a “vocal minority” called their senators, and sufficiently scared them into voting against the bill. Members of Congress are so worried about being primaried in their next elections that they don’t represent the majority of people. As Obama resignedly asked, who are they representing?

Senior Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal called yesterday the “saddest day of [his] public life”. He has been a tireless advocate for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook massacre rocked his state in December. Yesterday was especially disappointing for millions of Americans, myself included. There are eight more gun control-related bills that are going to the Senate floor in the coming days. They are not expected to pass. As one resolute father of a six-year-old boy who was brutally murdered by gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School said, this is just the beginning. They knew it would be a long road, and they (all those related to victims of gun violence) aren’t going anywhere because they have no choice.

It’s difficult to be optimistic, but there are no other options but to give up. Progress often takes time. I’m hoping at least some of these senators are voted out next election cycle, and replaced by more progressive counterparts. Let them feel the power of votes firsthand.

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin. Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign. The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics. These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base. I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees. As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars. Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill. Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity. As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands. Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time. Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored. Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock. Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition. Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities. That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate. When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality. The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races. Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent. The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse.

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home. As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not. Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time. Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate. Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday. This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post. The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility. They will also read what their idols write in magazines. They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on. The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign.

Let’s start with Exhibit A. I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter. This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex. Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape. No argument from me here. It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point. Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case. I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden. Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed.

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic. I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist. Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much.

Back to Twitter woman, though. This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her. At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything. She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth. She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way. Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point. The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech. I don’t deny the validity of this claim. People are free to say and write nearly anything they want. My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society. They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you. Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine. He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band. The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy.

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny. It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind them. For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them. They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative. I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening.

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message. He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”. As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage.

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.”

Witty? Not so much. Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously. It’s lost here, though. Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in. His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it. If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR. The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier. When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors. The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely. Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that. He just sounds stupid and petulant.

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped. His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities. Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. The list goes on. There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees. Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact. I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote. He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

Incivility abounds. And, as I said, it trickles down. I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality. So far, so good. Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States. Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history. Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did. I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism. It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage.

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people. Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change. I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough. You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back. Fine. You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok. You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary. These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either. I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions. Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA for short). In the ruling of a lifetime (really, how often do non-constitutional scholars get this excited about anything involving the Supreme Court?), the Court upheld the entire law as constitutional, aka, legal. The details were very exciting, but I won’t get into them here. That’s not what this post is about.

This post is about the fact that certain segments of society have taken up the most selfish, bigoted, irresponsible, opportunistic, and ignorant views on this subject that it makes me embarrassed to call them fellow citizens. It is one thing to disagree with the nuances of the law. I certainly don’t think the law is perfect as is. I would even understand if people openly stated that they don’t care about other people and don’t want to pay for them. At least they’re being honest. It’s quite another to brandish your argument in fancy words and pretend you’re all about cost control, “freedom”, and “judicial restraint”. While I’m probably preaching to the choir, and it’s not like my blog post will reach Cantor and Co., I feel compelled to spell out two arguments for the necessity of health reform.

The moral argument: You’ve heard the statistics. 50 million people are uninsured in America. That’s nearly 1 in 6. Those who are insured may be underinsured, or may take a job or remain at a job because they need the healthcare provided by their employer. Pre-“Obamacare”: Lifetime caps on coverage were instituted, making it impossible for many people to pay their medical bills, medicines were more expensive, contraception cost more money, those with preexisting conditions such as breast cancer (yes, really) were routinely denied coverage altogether, and there were gaping holes in insurance coverage for young adults and rising costs for senior citizens. Nearly 50,000 people a year die because they don’t have health insurance. This is a staggering number and should be unacceptable to any human being. The United States, an industrialized country, and the wealthiest country in the world by far, has no excuse. Politicians love to brag about how the American medical system has the finest doctors and the best technology in the world. Yet, we charge people exorbitant amounts at the emergency room, and let tens of thousands die per year. It’s often said that reason is the better tack to take in an argument as opposed to emotion. In this case, there’s no way to leave emotion out of it. Sickness and suffering is an emotional thing—especially if much of this suffering can be alleviated, and care can be provided for all.

The economic argument: For those who don’t care about the morality of the matter—or who have compassion, but “don’t think we can afford” to overhaul the healthcare system right now—there is a very strong economic argument to be made. Currently, healthcare accounts for 18% of the country’s GDP. To put that number in perspective, the United States government spent approximately 1% of GDP on the space program at the height of the Cold War, and that was a lot of money. This 18% is not stagnant, either. When people say that healthcare costs are “spiraling out of control”, and need to be contained, they mean it. Healthcare will eat up more and more of the budget, and soon, we won’t be able to pay for anything else. This is not meant as a scare tactic, and it’s not wild speculation. It’s the truth. Insuring more people, providing preventative care, preempting emergency room visits (the only way some people get treated), neutralizing risk, and creating a climate of stability will bring the costs down significantly. Sure, it will take a few years, but inaction is worse. If the U.S. had taken significant action on climate change decades ago…but I digress. Doctors, hospitals, patients, and healthcare experts all agree that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to go the way of the ACA.

The free rider problem: This is about who we are, as Americans, as a society. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and this concept carries with it certain responsibilities. Given the choice, individuals will act in self interest, aka, not take care of someone else. People will also not pay for things they don’t want or don’t see a need for—or, especially, if they feel the “intrusive” government is “shoving it down their throats”. Unless that something is on an infomercial…maybe the government should’ve tried to selling healthcare reform on TV at 3 in the morning. The point is, people need to be mandated to buy insurance to neutralize risk and to control costs for everyone. There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance to ensure people participate and that the program is successful. Also, it’s not as if people never get sick or hurt or old. It’s really an investment. Many of the people who don’t want to buy health insurance are the people who end up needing it the most. Those who can’t afford it will be aided. We live in a society in which cooperation is key. No one lives in a vacuum and became successful or self sufficient by himself or herself. A real patriot would want to do what’s best for the people in his or her country. Any person who wants to live in a successful society—really just an outgrowth of the idea of favorable environment—should understand and internalize this fact. We need to work together in a society, and sorry, Ron Paul, libertarian tendencies of hoping the “members of a church” will help someone in their community who is sick is unrealistic, unpredictable, and unsustainable.

In the 2 years and 3 months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, it seems all Republicans have been doing is mounting a relentless P.R. campaign against the “monstrosity” they call “Obamacare”. When the scare tactics of alleged “death panels” didn’t catch on much beyond Tea Party circles, Republicans aimed for greater legitimacy by claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Eventually 26 states advanced this charge, and the healthcare law made it before the Supreme Court. In reality, behind the scenes much debate was going on within the Republican Party. In the last few months, talking points started to shift from “gutting the whole thing” to “of course, we’d keep the most popular parts”. While “replace and replace” became the de facto sound bite for any politician with an “R” attached to his or her name, the issue of what to replace their dreaded Obamacare with became more real. The sobering reality, once the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law in March, was that the Republicans must provide a viable alternative to the “2,700 page” legislation they had worked so tirelessly to strike down.

Herein lies the issue. As many have observed, prominent Republicans seemed to want to keep many parts of the law that proved popular. Their main opposition (beyond some of the issues with women’s health coverage and other so-called “liberal” provisions) was to the individual mandate part of the law. They didn’t like the loss of freedom imposed by a mandate forcing people to pay for healthcare. Their claims about the mandate, like all of their other claims about the law, were, of course, greatly exaggerated and distorted. Hyperbolic or not, Republicans didn’t like the idea of a penalty and infringement on individuals’ all-important “liberty”.

Cue the free rider problem. Also, isn’t denying people healthcare coverage an infringement of their liberty? “Life” comes before “liberty” in the Declaration of Independence. Without life, the pursuit of liberty and happiness become nonexistent. Besides, a lot of people are stupid. That’s not very diplomatic, but it’s true. When they need it, people want government to step in and protect them from their mistakes or when they’re at their most vulnerable—then it’s ok, apparently. In addition, people’s “liberty” often adversely affects other people, and everyone would admit that security (in this case, harm minimization) is the government’s role.

You would think that Republicans would be satisfied with the law because it helps big business. Insurance companies, overall, end up the big winners. The ACA is nowhere near nationalized or universal healthcare. That “Romneycare” was the blueprint for “Obamacare” need not be mentioned except to draw attention to the humor and irony involved in the opposition presidential candidate’s contortions around such a personally damaging issue. Hypocrisy at its finest. In fact, Romney, too, notably changed his tune in his speech following the Supreme Court decision which upheld the ACA in its entirety. Romney wants to keep certain provisions in place such as keeping kids on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26, not denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and maintaining competition between plans. Some Republican politicians have gone even further to endorse the provision of stopping lifetime caps on care. How to pay for all of this, though, without the mandate? The lynchpin of the law, much like the “automatic trigger” of sequestration enacted after the debt ceiling debates, was put in place to hold people accountable. Otherwise, they will “kick the cab down the road” forever and people will not take responsibility, not individually, and certainly not for the wellbeing of society. The conservatives, who always stress sustainability, have spit in the face of a plan whose central tenet–the individual mandate–they, themselves, designed.

Do they want freedom or security (read: liberty or sustainability)? President Obama’s Democratically passed law provides some measure of both. It aims to address spiraling healthcare costs and provides much choice and increased coverage for millions of people. Almost everyone in the United States is impacted by this law. It is by no means perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, and if Republicans are still so up in arms about it–and not just because they’re sore losers, hate Obama, aren’t too fond of women, prefer the status quo, and will cling to power at all costs–then it’s a positive sign.

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject. “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”. “Romney is trailing with female voters”. “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”. “The real way to appeal to female voters is…” Stop. Women are human beings. Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians. You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group. President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls. Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit. This was not the first time the summit convened. It is not merely an election year tactic.

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama. I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me. Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights. I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle. I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women. I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected. If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place. The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal. Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker). Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor. Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session. The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion. The New York Daily News elaborates:“The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month. Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner. In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit. Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress. This should be a no-brainer. It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past. It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act. This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time. Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings. The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.

According to an article in The Huffington Post, “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent. The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.”

Terrible, right? Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right? Wrong. The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start. Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid. The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights. Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America. Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle. If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that grants equal rights under the law to U.S. citizens, regardless of gender. On March 22, 1972, after a very long battle beginning when the bill was first written in1923, the ERA passed the Senate (after a protracted battle in which it passed the House twice). It was not ratified by enough states to become an amendment. This bill didn’t pass at the height of the women’s rights movement in the United States. We have been dealing with the repercussions ever since. Sexism might have very well still been abundant, but perhaps we’d be closer to true equality if such an amendment were passed. It is one thing to say you believe in equal rights for women, but the reality illustrates an alternate picture. In recent weeks, women’s rights have entered the political foreground, and I’d like to take the opportunity to address the crucial issue of women’s rights in this blog post. As trite as it sounds, “women’s” rights are human rights.

On Wednesday night’s episode of “The Colbert Report”, Stephen Colbert had a hilarious and very timely bit concerning the recent strides in the development of male birth control pills. He declared that if men are to use such pills, then the morally right thing to do is to force them to endure an ultrasound probe into their urethras in order to see the face of every sperm—yes, you read that right. The importance of seeing the face of each sperm cannot be discounted because, according to his logic of reproductive morality, each sperm is a potential life. Taking birth control pills to render voluntary impotency is killing potential life. If the men could see the faces of the millions of sperm they are destroying—nee, the potential human life that is being destroyed—maybe they would think differently. “If they survive” having a huge probe rammed up their pee holes, that is, Stephen said.

As unbelievably ridiculous as this sounds, it could’ve been the reality for millions of Virginian women. If a woman wanted to get an abortion in Virginia, she would have had to undergo a 24-hour waiting period, be subjected to a line of emotional questioning, and submit to a transvaginal ultrasound. The normal ultrasound is a non-invasive one placed on top of the woman’s abdomen. This is not the ultrasound that would’ve been given. Transvaginal means a large probe is stuck up the woman’s vagina for no medical purpose whatsoever. Pursuant to the wording of Virginia’s laws, forcing an object into a woman’s vagina against her will for no necessary purpose is tantamount to rape. Think about this: If a woman were not in a doctor’s office, and someone forced an object up her vagina without her permission, this would be called rape by instrument. It is a crime. It is traumatizing, very possibly painful, and intended to shame a woman into not having an abortion—or at the very least, to preemptively punish her even if she does go through with the procedure. What if a woman is pregnant as the result of a rape? The violation of a probe after such an event is even more traumatic—unimaginably so. As if all this isn’t bad enough, pictures of the fetus were to be permanently placed in the woman’s file. The alleged compromise at the time was that the woman wouldn’t be forced to look at the photos if she didn’t want to—even though they were being shown on a screen right next to her face. How considerate. They are only placed in the file as a permanent reminder. Because the act of getting an abortion is so easy, right? It’s not already a terribly tumultuous time emotionally for the woman involved. Of course not.

While the most obviously offensive part of the bill was overturned, other tenets of the bill were not. After a tremendous outcry from millions of women as well as men, on the gross invasion of privacy and sheer violation such a practice would entail, Governor Bob McDonnell (known for his lifelong commitment to curtailing women’s reproductive rights) scaled back the bill. The bill is no longer up for a vote in the immediate future.

One of the recent precursors to this bill was McDonnell’s proposal that women be given “morality tests” to judge whether they could make the right decision about getting an abortion. Don’t many Republicans claim to belong to the party of small government? Don’t they hate mandates and government intrusion and claim it’s the big, bad Democrats who want to make your decisions for you? That “Obamacare” gets in between people and their doctors? (Fact check: it doesn’t.) There’s a very good reason that it’s been said that Republicans want small government—small enough to fit inside a woman’s uterus. It’s empirically true.

Similar bills are already on the books in several other states. That’s right—this proposed Virginia law was not an isolated case.

The other big story in the news recently was the opposition to sections of the Affordable Healthcare Act that stipulate that costs for methods of birth control and family planning, such as birth control pills, be partially covered by employers offering health insurance to their employees. The Catholic Church bucked at the provision that it should pay for birth control for female employees of Church institutions such as Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities—that this was a matter of conscience. In lockstep with several Church elders, many Republicans framed the “debate” as a demonic, overarching president infringing on the religious freedom of individuals—and institutions—opposed to such practices as they view as not only immoral, but unconscionable. I could get into all the hairy details about how this was almost entirely a calculated political move and had very little to do with “liberty”, but I would end up going off on a very long tangent. Even when the Obama administration promised a compromise wherein the insurance companies would pay for the costs, the fight continued.

A Congressional panel was formed to discuss religious freedom vs. “Obamacare”. No women were invited to speak on women’s health issues. A woman who had been invited by the Democratic minority to speak was shut out by Representative Darrell Issa. Forget partisan bullying and obstructionism. This was sexism, pure and simple.

The next step was a vote on the Blunt amendment. I would recommend watching Jon Stewart’s synopsis of this vote from his Thursday night show. If passed, this bill would have allowed employers to deny healthcare coverage to employees based on religious or moral convictions—whatever those might be. The bill failed—by only 3 votes.

Rhetoric such as the contention that back in his day, “women held an aspirin between their knees” and called it birth control (a statement declared by Rick Santorum’s largest donor Foster Friess) is despicable. His attempt at a cutesy folk reference literally means that when he was younger, women didn’t need actual birth control because they kept their legs closed. It cuts to the heart of true sexism. It is an entrenched way of thinking not unlike the racism of certain southern conservatives whose opinions of those of color hasn’t changed all that much since the time of slavery. It’s a wink and nod, old boys club, women shouldn’t want to be desired or else they’re sluts, sexism. It’s couched in religious rhetoric and it’s not necessarily confined to regionalism. Republicans have been at the forefront, but it’s not a partisan sexism. There are even women who subscribe to this same ethic of gender inequality.

This is a huge problem. I have dealt with the idea on a daily basis that if I wear clothing that shows off my body, then I’m “dressing slutty”, that if something were to happen to me (this something is always hinted at, but it means if I were to be attacked—raped or molested—by a man), then I’m asking for it. I can’t be too pretty by wearing a lot of makeup, whatever that means. I can’t be too sexy. I’m just too tempting. I’m asking to be raped. It’s my fault. The man can’t help it. He’s so horny that he just can’t control himself. This is what we tell girls and women in our society. The goal is to be desired because you need to have a man, but you better be careful because men aren’t to be trusted. This bipolar ideology governs women every day in the United States.

Another recent point of contention was in response to Rick Santorum’s view that he worries about women in frontline combat in the U.S. military. His claim was that he worried about the emotions involved. He clarified his statement by saying that it wasn’t the women he was worried about who would fall to pieces, but the men, who have been taught to protect women, to subscribe to a kind of chivalrous ethic in which they keep women out of harm’s way. While the overwhelming military view is that female service members in Afghanistan and Iraq have been just as capable and tough as men in combat, we should be looking at another issue entirely. If anyone is worried about women, they should look at the appalling rates of sexual abuse women suffer, both in the military and as military contractors. Those men are certainly not chivalrous or protective.

This brings me to my main underlying point. The prevailing view—whether subconscious or not—is that in many instances, the victim is seen as the aggressor or the instigator. We look down on cultures that force women to cover themselves up so as not to be sexually objectified, yet it is rarely explained why we do that. Clothing and not wearing a head covering is more than a matter of choice, of self expression (though these things are certainly important to developing a sense of identity and feeling less constrained). I’m not only referring to Muslim cultures. In addition to Muslims, Orthodox Jews and various Christian sects as well as members of the FLDS engage in such practices in the United States. Orthodoxy, fundamentalism, extremism (whatever you want to call it) often breeds sexism. Whether women are encouraged (or often forced) to wear head coverings, wigs, or wear their hair in non-sexual styles, the theme of not tempting men with long, lustrous hair is repeated. Men have a biological attraction to long hair on women. Healthy hair, in general, is a sign of fertility and men will have a response to this. It’s encoded in their DNA. A woman’s curves have a similar effect. This is natural! Women should not hide who they are! They shouldn’t be made to obscure themselves so that men won’t be tempted to have their way with them. Girls should not be made to iron their breasts or undergo female genital mutilation in African and Middle Eastern countries because men might desire them or rape them. How is this the reality we live in? How is this accepted? None of this should be allowed to continue. None of these sexist practices should be perpetuated. I know, I seem so intolerant. How dare I compare wearing a hijab or a long, shapeless skirt to a young girl’s clitoris being cut off and/or her vagina sewn up? One is minor; the other barbaric, right? I don’t care. I’m sick of being silent. I’m sick of being politically correct. The message beneath any practice that alters who a woman is so that she protects herself from the animal instincts of men is abhorrent. As a society, we should disavow such practices immediately. It is disgusting that women in Orthodox communities in Brooklyn are made to feel unclean when they have their periods because of an ignorance perpetuated by men who are so fearful of any upheaval of the status quo that they relegate women to the status of sub-human animals. They routinely treat women as filthy. Men want women to remain uneducated, to be servants, to be subservient to men. The U.S. law doesn’t intervene in such practices because it protects “religious freedom”. How about human rights? I am of the firm belief that individual dignity trumps religious freedom. Even when taking religion out of the equation, entrenched sexism constantly surfaces. A similar ethic of women as second class citizens or as weak or merely as things to be objectified is illustrated by the oft-repeated “bitch, make me a sandwich” line or the ubiquitous use of the word “pussy” in the male vernacular.

I’ve been called a cultural imperialist. I think I’ve proven that I believe Western and American culture has a long way to go and is far from perfect. I certainly don’t think I’m living in a utopia in which gender is not a source of prejudice and ill treatment. Human beings have the faculty of reason and the capacity to practice ethics. We have laws. Men can certainly control themselves and must do so. Women should not live in fear and should not have to take extra precautions against the animal instincts of men. If anything, it is the men who should be constrained, not the women. I believe that we live in a world in which everyone should be treated equally.

Women have to deal with all kinds of sexism. The last place women should have to worry about this is to have it written into the law.

Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican presidential candidate to beat. Aside from the fact that he’s “not Mitt Romney”, I don’t understand what about him appeals to potential voters. He’s not particularly charismatic or charming—in fact, he’s downright condescending. He doesn’t have impeccable conservative credentials. He doesn’t even have catchy soundbites.

While I’m certainly not a Newt Gingrich fan, I don’t agree with the reasons why he’s being attacked. “Personal baggage” is how pundits have put his personal transgressions as well as what are seen as his media missteps. There is plenty to disagree with Gingrich on politically (whether you’re a prospective primary voter or you’re a progressive like me who’s taken an interest in the candidates because if Obama were to lose you’d want it to be someone who is at least potentially palatable as president). If, however, the focus is to be on Gingrich’s personality flaws, I’d like to focus on issues that should be of much greater importance to voters than Gingrich’s multiple marriages, the affair he had while his previous wife had cancer, his hypocrisy during the skewering of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, or—worst of all in the eyes of conservative pundits—Gingrich’s “Al Gore sponsored” commercial about using alternative energy to power America because of the devastating effects of climate change with none other than that she-devil Nancy Pelosi (gasp).

A quick word on the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial: Whether you personally like Nancy Pelosi or not, the reason both politicians were in the commercial was not accidental. At the time of the commercial (beginning in 2007), Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House. A not so subtle parallel was to be drawn. This commercial was supposed to be post-partisan. It was a step forward. Both Pelosi and Gingrich admitted that they may not agree on everything, but they agreed on renewable energy for the country they both served. How refreshing. Remember the days when members of Congress could actually agree on things and cross party lines? Yeah, I don’t really either. This commercial, however, was a glimmer of that long lost time. Now, after being dragged through the mud for appearing in a commercial with Herman Cain’s “Princess Nancy” about that liberal myth meant to bankrupt America by the hippie commies known as climate change (double gasp), Gingrich has back pedaled on his participation in the commercial and with the organization behind it.

What happened to principles? What happened to leadership? Taking allegedly unpopular positions because you know they would benefit the country and the world—as opposed to cow towing to the extremes of the party—is true leadership. This is the kind of thing I want to see, and it should be the kind of thing that Republicans want to see, as well. And since when did believing in science become a disqualifier for attaining the nation’s highest office? Jon Huntsman, who is a definite conservative on the traditional issues that matter to Republicans, has been labeled a moderate in no small part because of his open support for evolution and for his belief in anthropogenic climate change. Especially in an election where the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be on the economic front, punishing a candidate—whether it be Huntsman or Gingrich—for supporting “Al Gore’s agenda” is ridiculous and shameful.

Newt is sleazy. He is an immense political opportunist. He is arrogant, self-serving, and snarky. In a word, he is not presidential. He wants Americans to look at his record. A standout point from said record was the way he conducted business while in the House of Representatives. Before ascending to the Speakership, he fed his popularity by giving passionate speeches to the chamber. These speeches were televised on C-Span, a method Gingrich purposely employed in an effort to use broadcast media to his advantage. These impassioned speeches seemed to defy opposition. So good was he that he captivated the esteemed room. The only problem was that he was being entirely disingenuous to both the audience and the other House members. Gingrich purposely gave long, secret, after-hours speeches to empty House chambers in the late 1980s. He did this so that his ideas would not be opposed, and he would come off seeming like some kind of invincible genius. This Karl Rove-esque trick is no longer allowed to occur in Congress. It was cheating. You can read about Gingrich’s sneaky tactic here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NmCL26aE00wC&pg=PA169&dq=%2Bgingrich+%2Bcspan+%2Bafterhours&hl=en&ei=NFTdTs3GBcf30gGV7pzSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

Watch Newt Gingrich in any debate and you will see how he responds to his fellow candidates. I had the special pleasure of seeing him debate Howard Dean at a George Washington University event a few months before he formally declared his candidacy. He oozes disregard and condescension. Republicans love to call Barack Obama an elitist. Newt Gingrich is the elitist archetype.

As if these aren’t turnoffs enough, Gingrich’s cozying up to Donald Trump is downright sickening. It’s shameless opportunism. Seeking out Trump’s endorsement and courting Trump on both his recent trip to Manhattan and lauding Trump’s debate makes Gingrich look desperate and low.

Gingrich’s smugness knows no bounds. His “look at me” ethic and his constant declarations of “I’m going to be the nominee” belie insecurity shrouded in arrogance.

One thing I like about Newt Gingrich is that he is the only candidate to come out publicly in support of NASA. It seemed like he would be for increasing funding to NASA, and at the most recent Republican debate in Iowa (Saturday, December 10, 2011), Gingrich responded to a Romney jab by saying that he remembered growing up during a time when children could dream about being astronauts. He declared that he was unapologetic about wanting to encourage science and math and promoting missions to the moon and Mars. He seemed stronger on this issue than Obama.

I’m not a one issue voter, though, and it’s times like these that I have to remind myself that Gingrich wants poor kids to work janitorial jobs in schools and doesn’t believe in financial aid payments for college. One can’t forget his stance on not taxing the “job creators” and his complete denigration of Palestinians (which is a whole other issue that I could spend hours writing).